JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr. P.C. is directed against Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Criminal Appeal No. 18(4) of 2008 whereunder learned Sessions Judge upheld the judgment & order of conviction and sentence dated 11.11.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kailashahar. North Tripura in Case No. G.R. 141 of 2006. In Case No. G.R. 141 of 2006, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, North Tripura, Kailashahar, the accused-petitioners were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 and 379read with Section 34 of IPC and after conclusion of trial, learned Judicial Magistrate found them guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment to suffer S.I. for one month. In appeal, learned Sessions Judge upheld the judgment & order of conviction, but reduced the sentence with a direction that the accused-petitioner shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. Aggrieved, the accused-convict-petitioners preferred the present revisional application. 2. Heard learned counsel, Ms. P. Dhar for the petitioners and learned Additional P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State-respondent. 3. Prosecution case, in short, is that Tapan Deb (P.W. 9) had a cow and he sold the cow to one Bindu Sarkar of his village. After a few days, the said Bindu Sarkar reported him that the cow so sold was missing. After about a week, on 15.05.2006 at about 6/7 a.m., Tapan Deb, P.W. 9 went to the house of accused, Mukul Deb (died in the mean time) to search the missing cow and when he reached the house, Mukul Deb and other inmates of his house namely, Laxmi Deb, Manoj Deb, Mantosh Deb and Santosh Deb attacked him and started physical assault severely. To escape from the assault, he ran out from the house of Mukul Deb and rushed towards the house of his elder brother Uttam Deb and all the accused persons i.e. Mukul Deb and other members of his family chasing behind him. To escape from the assault, he ran out from the house of Mukul Deb and rushed towards the house of his elder brother Uttam Deb and all the accused persons i.e. Mukul Deb and other members of his family chasing behind him. In front of the house of Bhanu Paul, he was restrained by Bhanu Paul and his wife, accused Basanti Paul and all the accused persons dragged him inside the house of Bhanu Paul and started assault on him mercilessly with a piece of branch of trees, fist blows etc. He suffered severe injury and raised cry. Hearing his cry, his elder brother Uttam Deb, P.W. 1 and their neighbour Milan Das (P.W. 2) rushed to the house of Bhanu Paul and rescued Tapan from the hand of the accused persons and thereafter taken him to 82 Miles PHC where he was treated immediately and since the injuries were serious, he was referred to District Hospital (RGM Hospital), Kailashahar where he was treated as an indoor patient for the period from 15.05.2006 to 24.05.2006. He suffered grievous injury due to the assault. 4. On 16.05.2006, Uttam Deb (P.W. 1) lodged an FIR before the O.C., Manu P.S. narrating the fact which was reduced into writing by S.I. Kamal Kar Chowdhury, in-charge O.C. of the P.S. and accordingly, Manu P.S. Case No. 16 of 2006 under Section 341/325/379/34 of IPC was registered and an investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the FIR named accused persons i.e. the accused-petitioners and Mukul Deb, who died in the mean time and on the basis of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 325, 379 and 34 of IPC and trial was taken up. In the course of trial, charges under Sections 325 and 379 read with Section 34 of IPC were framed against all the accused persons to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and out of them, P.W. 9 is the victim and is the star witness of the prosecution. P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 7 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 4 is the wife of P.W. 9 and she is a hearsay witness. P.Ws 6 and 7 stated nothing. P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 7 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 4 is the wife of P.W. 9 and she is a hearsay witness. P.Ws 6 and 7 stated nothing. P.W. 8 is Medical Officer of RGM hospital, who treated the victim P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 is the Medical Officer of 82 Miles PHC and first treated the victim in the hospital. P.W. 11 is the I.O. of the case. After closure of the prosecution evidence, all the accused-persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and thereafter, in their turn, they declined to adduce any defence evidence. 6. Defence case is that the victim Tapan Deb (P.W. 9) is a cattle lifter and there were several criminal cases of theft and mischief against him. On the date of occurrence, in the morning, he was chased by the villagers on the allegation of cattle lifting and while he was on chase, he fell down repeatedly on the road and suffered some injuries. The allegations of assault in the house of the accused-persons were completely false. 7. The trial Court acquitted the accused-persons from the charge under Section 379 read with Section 34IPC, but found them guilty of the charge under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them as stated hereinbefore. On appeal by the accused-petitioners, sentence was reduced but the judgment & order of conviction and sentence was upheld. Hence, this revisional application. 8. The first point raised by learned counsel, Ms. Dhar is that on the date of alleged occurrence itself, an FIR was lodged by Uttam Deb, but that FIR has been suppressed. Thereafter, on 16.05.2006, the present FIR, which has been proved as Exbt. 1 was lodged by Uttam Deb and reduced into writing by P.W. 11. Since first FIR was suppressed, the prosecution case from the very inception was liable to be doubted and the benefit ought to go to favour the accused-petitioners. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to consider that aspect. Learned Additional P.P., Mr. Debnath has submitted that there is nothing on record that another FIR was lodged on 15.05.2006 by the informant P.W. 1. At least, no such question was put to I.O. at the time of cross-examination. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to consider that aspect. Learned Additional P.P., Mr. Debnath has submitted that there is nothing on record that another FIR was lodged on 15.05.2006 by the informant P.W. 1. At least, no such question was put to I.O. at the time of cross-examination. What is stated by P.W. 1 cannot be accepted as a gospel truth since I.O. was not cross-examined on that point and no such FIR brought on record. 9. P.W. 1 is the informant of the case. In his cross-examination, in the very first line he stated that on the date of incident, he lodged an ejahar to the O.C., Manu P.S., but subsequently, he was called by O.C. Manu P.S. and he was told that ejahar was not correctly written and then he narrated the occurrence to the O.C. and as per his version, the FIR was recorded. Such statement of P.W. 1, no doubt gives an impression that an FIR was lodged on 15.05.2006 by P.W. 1 and that FIR was not accepted since it was not correctly written. No further cross-examination was made to the witnesses as to whether it was a written FIR or a oral FIR. G.D. book of the P.S. was not called for. I.O. was not at all cross-examined on the point to substantiate this contention. There is also no cross-examination of P.W. 1 that the alleged earlier FIR contained certain facts which was contrary to what has been stated in the subsequent FIR which is marked as Exbt. 1. A simple statement in the cross-examination of an illiterate person that an earlier FIR was lodged, cannot through the entire prosecution case in the helm of falsehood unless, it is clearly brought on record that such an FIR was actually lodged at the P.S. either orally or in writing and that was acted upon. Even not a suggestion was put to the I.O. i.e. P.W. 11, who recorded the Exbt. 1, FIR of the case. Under such circumstances, I cannot accept the argument of learned counsel, Ms. Dhar that the FIR, which is proved is the second FIR and that it contains distorted fact. The ratio of the decision of Sevi and another etc. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in AIR 1981 SC 1230 , referred by learned counsel, Ms. Under such circumstances, I cannot accept the argument of learned counsel, Ms. Dhar that the FIR, which is proved is the second FIR and that it contains distorted fact. The ratio of the decision of Sevi and another etc. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in AIR 1981 SC 1230 , referred by learned counsel, Ms. Dhar is clearly distinguishable from the fact of this case and hence, I find no manner of application in that decision is the fact of this case. 10. Next argument advanced by learned counsel, Ms. Dhar is that the prosecution has purposely withheld material witnesses. According to the prosecution, P.W. 9 sold his cow to Bindu Sarkar of his village and Bindu Sarkar reported him that the cow was missing and, therefore, to search that cow he went to the house of Mukul Deb. That Bindu Sarkar is a vital witness to ascertain as to whether actually, the accused sold out any such cow to Bindu Sarkar or not. Secondly, defence put definite suggestion that the accused was a cow lifter and he went to the house of Mukul Deb in the early morning for lifting of cow and at that time, he was chased by the villagers. Had Bindu Sarkar was examined it would reveal actually there was any such transaction or not. Further all the prosecution witnesses admitted that the cow which P.W. 9 found in the house of Mukul Deb, which he alleged to have sold to Bindu Sarkar, was still lying in the custody of Mukul Deb i.e. in the house of Mukul Deb and that proves that there was no missing cow of Bindu Sarkar in the house of Mukul Deb. Learned counsel has emphatically argued that non-examination of Bindu Sarkar has created a serious doubt about the genuinity and authenticity of the prosecution case. Learned Additional P.P. has submitted that Bindu Sarkar was no doubt an important witness. But it has to be seen whether for non-examination of Bindu Sarkar entire prosecution case should be disbelieved or whether the case is otherwise established in the evidence of other witnesses. If the evidence of other witnesses cannot be discarded and are acceptable, judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot be interfered. But it has to be seen whether for non-examination of Bindu Sarkar entire prosecution case should be disbelieved or whether the case is otherwise established in the evidence of other witnesses. If the evidence of other witnesses cannot be discarded and are acceptable, judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot be interfered. It is also submitted by learned Additional P.P. that the victim Tapan Deb was recovered by P.Ws 1 and 2 from the house of accused Bhanu Paul and that evidence has not been shaken in any manner. P.Ws 3 and 7 also corroborated that statement. Under such circumstances, there is no scope to doubt the prosecution case in any manner about the alleged assault. 11. In a revision petition, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the extent of looking into the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment/order challenged and the regularity of the proceeding of the inferior Court. The revisional Court should not ordinarily enter into the factual aspect and go for re-appreciation of evidence unless, it is apparently on record that in admissible evidence has been considered or that the finding is based on no legal evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 9, Tapan Deb went to the house of Mukul Deb in the morning of 15.05.2006 and he was attacked by the house inmates i.e. the accused persons along with Mukul Deb (now dead) and started assault on him. To escape from the assault, he rushed out from the house, but the accused-persons chased him. He entered in the house of accused Bhanu Paul and/or he was restrained by accused Bhanu Paul and dragged inside his house and the accused-persons, who were chasing behind him also entered in the house of accused Bhanu Paul and all of them assaulted the victim Tapan Deb causing injuries. He was rescued from that house by P.Ws 1 and 2. P.Ws 3 and 7 also corroborated the fact. P.W. 10 examined the victim Tapan Deb at 82 Miles Primary Health Center and found marks of injuries. His condition was serious and therefore, he was referred to District Hospital (RGM hospital), Kailashahar where P.W. 8 examined him and he was treated as an indoor patient for 12 days. It is in the evidence of P.W. 8 that Tapan Deb suffered grievous injury. His condition was serious and therefore, he was referred to District Hospital (RGM hospital), Kailashahar where P.W. 8 examined him and he was treated as an indoor patient for 12 days. It is in the evidence of P.W. 8 that Tapan Deb suffered grievous injury. The evidence on record is enough to arrive at a conclusion that the accused persons physically assaulted Tapan Deb causing grievous injury on the alleged date and time. In the given facts and circumstances, Bindu Sarkar was no doubt an important witness, but no adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of Bindu Sarkar since Bindu Sarkar was not a witness to the occurrence. He may be of the witness of circumstances, but where eye witnesses were present and examined, non-examination of a circumstantial witness is of no consequence. I therefore, find no force in this argument of learned counsel, Ms. Dhar. 12. Next point raised by learned counsel, Ms. Dhar is that the victim and other witnesses, all made a general statement about assault. But particularly, which of the accused assaulted with what weapon of offence or in what manner has not been specifically stated. There is also no evidence of previous meeting of mind or pre-arranged plan and so, the finding of the trial Court and the appellate Court that all the accused persons were equally guilty of the charges were altogether unjustified. Learned Additional P.P., Mr. Debnath has submitted that the victim Tapan Deb and the eye witnesses made categorical statement that all the accused-persons assaulted Tapan Deb by branches of trees etc. There was no cross-examination to show innocence of any accused. Previous meeting of mind and prearranged plan can be inferred from the circumstances that all of them together assaulted the accused and none of the accused persons tried to prevent the others from the assault. According to the prosecution, the victim Tapan Deb went to the house of accused Mukul Deb to search the cow and at that time, the inmates of the house of Mukul Deb i.e. the accused Mukul, Laxmi, Manoj, Mantosh and Santosh all attacked Tapan and assaulted him. Common intention may develop at the moment of occurrence within a fraction of time. No previous meeting of mind and prearranged plan always necessary to infer common intention. Common intention may develop at the moment of occurrence within a fraction of time. No previous meeting of mind and prearranged plan always necessary to infer common intention. Here in this case, as alleged, all the inmates of the house attacked the victim, might be the victim with an ulterior purpose went to their house. When he ran out of the house all of them chased behind him and he was again beaten by them along with accused Bhanu Paul and Basanti Paul in their house. So the inference drawn by the trial Court and the appellate Court that all the accused-persons had the common intention to assault the victim cannot be said to have based on no evidence. In the facts and circumstances, I find no justification at all to appreciate the submission of learned counsel Ms. Dhar specially, in a revisional application and hence, I find no merit in this argument also. 13. Learned counsel, Ms. Dhar in the course of argument also indicated some other minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence on record, but those are so insignificant that no criminal case is free from such contradiction or inconsistencies. Defence has brought on record that there were criminal cases of theft and mischief against victim Tapan Deb, but in his evidence he stated that he has been acquitted from those cases. According to the prosecution, Tapan Deb went to the house of accused Mukul Deb to search a cow which he already sold to Bindu Sarkar. His such move prima facie creates a suspicion as to what was the reason for which he will go to the house of Mukul Deb to search a cow which he already sold out. This suspicion has not been clearly removed, but that suspicion cannot wash out the cogent evidence of record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I think, the judgment & order of conviction shall sustain, but the punishment part should be interfered. 14. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, sentence is reduced. The convict Monoj Kanti Deb, Mantosh Deb, Santosh Deb and Bhanu Paul is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One thousand) each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further S.I. for one month. 14. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, sentence is reduced. The convict Monoj Kanti Deb, Mantosh Deb, Santosh Deb and Bhanu Paul is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One thousand) each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further S.I. for one month. The convict Laxmi Das and Basanti Paul being woman be released on probation on their execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) each with one surety of the like amount on condition to appear and receive sentence within a period of two years and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. During the period of probation they shall remain under the supervision of the probation officer and the probation officer shall submit report time to time to learned trial Court. 15. Subject to modification of sentence, the revisional application stands disposed of. 16. Send back the L.C. record along with copy of this judgment.